Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

While this is rare, I come rely agree with Ted here. 

Well said, Ted. 

Owen


> On Aug 5, 2014, at 9:53, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> In summary, the premise of the daul stack transition for the Internet
>> is faulty.  It already failed.
> 
> With all due respect, I don't see how what you have said here benefits the discussion.   First of all, there's a great deal of evidence that what you've said isn't actually true, and secondly, even to the extent that it is true, it's not really actionable.  Of course there will be people who will do things the wrong way, and either limp along forever or eventually get bulldozed off the cliff.   So what?  
> 
> There are still mainframes in back offices running SNA, but that doesn't mean that IPv4 is irrelevant: quite the opposite--they are probably running SNA in IP tunnels, their 370 is probably an emulation running on an Intel box, and chances are that people are sshing in using a 3270 emulator.   So we don't care that they are still running SNA, and we don't care when they get rid of it, because it is not an "internet" protocol.   That is the future of IPv4 as well.
> 
> The question is, are there people who want to do a transition to IPv6 (or will want to), whether for altruistic or pragmatic reasons, and if so, is there additional help we can offer them, or is what we've done thus far sufficient?